Does any one have any news that restrictions on importing diesel-burning
vehicles have been relaxed recently?
I heard this at the VW dealer yesterday, but haven't heard any official
release on it.
Charle-Pan Dawson
Assistant Project Manager
Energy Efficiency Services
NYSERDA
518-862-1090 X 3244
Fax: 518-862-1091
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ps.com To:
biofuel@yahoogroups.com
cc:
08/26/02 10:11 AM Subject: [biofuel] Digest
Number 1086
Please respond to
biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: MN USA Fuel$
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: MN USA Fuel$
From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: MN USA Fuel$
From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. It's An ENIGMA
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: MN USA Fuel$
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Any good, active e-list for photovoltaic applications?
From: Christopher Witmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Thanks for Mercedes diesel info
From: Marc de Piolenc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. WVO for heat, preliminary results
From: "sbosco9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: "Mike Nixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions
From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: Jan Steinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions
From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: molecular sieves for dehydrating ethanol
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Inventing around the Biox process
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: WVO for heat, preliminary results
From: studio53 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: process questions
From: "pcooke04102" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. boiling glycerine/soap
From: "pcooke04102" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions
From: "Ehren Bucholtz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:26:16 -0400
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MN USA Fuel$
Why do they note %s of ethanol (E-85), but not biodiesel (B-?.?)
in their fuel blends?
The soy diesel could be anything from B-2.5 to B-20. The
probability is almost impossible that it was B-100, which is the
correct designation for "bio-diesel."
Todd Swearingen
----- Original Message -----
From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 1:49 AM
Subject: [biofuel] MN USA Fuel$
> Passed through the State of Minnesota while noticing regional
fuel prices --
>
> $1.309 E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline - summer blend) 96 to
110 octane
> $1.329 Soy Diesel
> $1.329 Diesel
> $1.369 Premium Diesel
> $1.399 Low sulfur (Blue Planet) gasoline, 87 octane
> $1.399 Gasoline, 87 octane
> $1.419 Gasoline, 90 octane
> $1.419 Gasoline, 90 octane with 10% ethanol
> $1.479 Gasoline, 92 octane
>
> ``
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:17:36 -0500
From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MN USA Fuel$
> Why do they note %s of ethanol (E-85), but not biodiesel (B-?.?)
> in their fuel blends?
I noted the percent for E-85 from past readings.
I was unable to gather information for the Soy Diesel but
suspect B2 as previously discussed last Spring, "key word" -- "Minnesota"
legislation.
The upper Midwest (USA) appears to be working thru farmer co-ops,
commercial truck stops and/or "Koch" Industries.
Keith wrote --
Subject: [biofuel] Biodiesel: A Fuel That Starts Low on the Food Chain
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002
> The soy diesel could be anything from B-2.5 to B-20. The
> probability is almost impossible that it was B-100, which is the
> correct designation for "bio-diesel."
>
> Todd Swearingen
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:52:04 -0500
From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MN USA Fuel$
> The soy diesel could be anything from B-2.5 to B-20. The
> probability is almost impossible that it was B-100, which is the
> correct designation for "bio-diesel."
>
> Todd Swearingen
MH wrote:
If memory serves B-2 (2% biodiesel, 98% diesel fuel)
increases lubricity and avoids fuel seal alterations.
If this is correct this would help older diesel farm tractors adapt
till fuel seals are upgraded sometime in the future.
Additions and corrections are welcome.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:36:18 +0900
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: It's An ENIGMA
This is a good article. Last time we looked it only had the first two
parts. Parts 3 and 4 available now.
Best
Keith
It's An ENIGMA
Who said you can't build a parallel hybrid with 20 miles ZEV range?
Not the team at San Diego State University.
http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=312
EV World:It's An ENIGMA
http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=315
EV World:It's An ENIGMA - Part 2
http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=319
EV World:It's An ENIGMA - Part 3
http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=325
EV World:It's An ENIGMA - Part 4
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 18:48:56 -0400
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MN USA Fuel$
As does B-20. B-2 is more a greenwash than anything else. I
suppose it's better than nothing, but not by much.
Todd Swearingen
----- Original Message -----
From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] MN USA Fuel$
> > The soy diesel could be anything from B-2.5 to B-20. The
> > probability is almost impossible that it was B-100, which is
the
> > correct designation for "bio-diesel."
> >
> > Todd Swearingen
>
> MH wrote:
> If memory serves B-2 (2% biodiesel, 98% diesel fuel)
> increases lubricity and avoids fuel seal alterations.
> If this is correct this would help older diesel farm tractors
adapt
> till fuel seals are upgraded sometime in the future.
>
> Additions and corrections are welcome.
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:34:24 +0900
From: Christopher Witmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Any good, active e-list for photovoltaic applications?
I need to locate an online discussion group or email list where the nuts
and bolts of photovoltaic electrical generation systems are discussed in
detail. If anyone could recommend such a venue, I would be most grateful.
Thanks!
Christopher Witmer
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:23:32 -0700
From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
I would suggest that anyone who has a serious interest in regional or
larger
scale biodiesel production simply contact Tim Haig and talk to him, they
are
open for business, and happy to discuss with potential plant purchasers
possible terms.
They are not interested in making biodiesel, AFAIK...they want to sell
plants not product.
If the process, and the deal struck make sense, go ahead and go at it -
regional production with the Biox process plant, that is.
I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that
continuous production plants will win out over batch plants. Continuous and
somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and inexpensive
transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale
operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At what
scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more costly
(financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid for and
built
from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant?
We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some regional
optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography, is
quite a loose and flexible term!
Edward Beggs, BES, MSc
Neoteric Biofuels Inc.
Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada
1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118
Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169
http://www.biofuels.ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large extent
> simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in their
> recent press reports. of which the following is one example:
>
> "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase process.
The
> advantages presented were those of a continuous process with significant
> reduction in process time and the success achieved when using feedstocks
of
> high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to produce
> biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)."
>
> Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the co-solvent
itself
> is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique enough to
merit
> claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable.
>
> How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to improve
> upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers unique
> advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the
> essential Biox process details?
>
> The US Patent Office encourages the development of new technology, for
which
> reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this will
enable
> others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique of
> "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive advantages is
the
> first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing whether or
not
> to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder.
> Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the
> technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue me."
>
> There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie Biox
patented
> technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process, and
> second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew process,
> without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes. Note
that a
> patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for commercial
benefit.
>
>
> For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses rather than
into
> a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be
> expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting those
> proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a new
business
> could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis, but with
the
> deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis.
>
> Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary,
patentable
> position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to become a
> megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward Beggs
> described in his 8/17 message. .
>
> Glenn Ellis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:12:09 +0900
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
>I would suggest that anyone who has a serious interest in regional or
larger
>scale biodiesel production simply contact Tim Haig and talk to him, they
are
>open for business, and happy to discuss with potential plant purchasers
>possible terms.
>
>They are not interested in making biodiesel, AFAIK...they want to sell
>plants not product.
Your heroes, Ed. They certainly make a lot of claims, some of which
seem quite wild, and/or contradictory. Reads a lot like poorly edited
sales talk. Have they actually managed to produce any product yet to
back up their claims? I mean not test-tubes full, proper production
that meets ASTM standards, as they claim, at a cost of 8 cents a
litre (or was that 18 cents a litre)? Do they have any track record
at all? Or just PR talk and pending patents, which they might not be
able to patent?
Keith
>If the process, and the deal struck make sense, go ahead and go at it -
>regional production with the Biox process plant, that is.
>
>I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that
>continuous production plants will win out over batch plants. Continuous
and
>somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and inexpensive
>transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale
>operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At what
>scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more costly
>(financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid for and
built
>from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant?
>We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some regional
>optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography, is
>quite a loose and flexible term!
>
>
>Edward Beggs, BES, MSc
>Neoteric Biofuels Inc.
>Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada
>1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118
>Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169
>http://www.biofuels.ca
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large extent
> > simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in
their
> > recent press reports. of which the following is one example:
> >
> > "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase process.
The
> > advantages presented were those of a continuous process with
significant
> > reduction in process time and the success achieved when using
feedstocks of
> > high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to
produce
> > biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)."
> >
> > Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the co-solvent
itself
> > is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique enough to
merit
> > claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable.
> >
> > How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to
improve
> > upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers unique
> > advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the
> > essential Biox process details?
> >
> > The US Patent Office encourages the development of new
>technology, for which
> > reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this
>will enable
> > others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique
of
> > "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive advantages is
the
> > first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing
>whether or not
> > to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder.
> > Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the
> > technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue me."
> >
> > There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie Biox
patented
> > technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process,
and
> > second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew process,
> > without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes.
>Note that a
> > patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for
>commercial benefit.
> >
> >
> > For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses
>rather than into
> > a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be
> > expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting those
> > proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a new
business
> > could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis, but with
the
> > deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis.
> >
> > Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary,
>patentable
> > position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to become
a
> > megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward Beggs
> > described in his 8/17 message. .
> >
> > Glenn Ellis
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:02:37 +0800
From: Marc de Piolenc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Thanks for Mercedes diesel info
Thanks for the responses to my plea for leads to service info for my
MB-100 van.
Marc de Piolenc
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:36:19 -0000
From: "sbosco9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: WVO for heat, preliminary results
Hello from the newbie on the list
I have been having some success with burning WVO in a traditional oil
burner. I at first attempted running it through mixed with an equal
amount of #2 heating oil (aka diesel fuel)- although the mixture
seemed to atomize normally, the mist only partially ignited. Second
attempt, I mixed one part WVO with two parts #2 oil, this ignited
almost completely. I have now logged about one hour of burning this
mixture, starting from a cold state several times. The combustion
makes an oscillating sound for a couple of minutes on startup, along
with some puffs of blowback through the cracks in the boiler door,
but it cleans up after the burner has been on for 2-3 minutes. The
improvement could be due to the heat which has built up in the
firebox walls- at that point the flame is clean white with very
little smoke.
After reading some of the things which have been written on this
subject, I was expecting the WVO to block my nozzle orifice, but,
(knock on oil can) this hasn't happened yet.
I'd like to eliminate the initial dodginess in the flame, and I'd
also like to increase my ratio of WVO to #2 oil- one way I might be
able to accomplish this is to start the burner with pure #2 oil then
switch over to WVO/#2 mix after the firebox is good and hot (following
the model employed in WVO burning cars). Preheating the oil also
occurred to me, but it seems like any preheating I could do safely
would be pretty modest compared with the firebox heat.
Another idea is to build a babington style burner, which I have begun
to assemble the parts for. I suspect that this type of burner will
suffer from the same problem though- incomplete combustion of the oil
mist at lower temperatures. The only babington style burner which I
have seen in action was affixed to a 4" diameter steel tube about 20"
long, again, possibly to build up heat quickly and radiate it back
onto the flame.
Comments welcome.
Stephen Bosco
Arlington, Mass., USA
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 19:54:18 -0700
From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
Keith:
They are not my "heroes", actually, but I think anyone who has a real
interest in what they have to offer, or what they have accomplished so far,
should simply ask them for an update.
Web sites don't always get updated or edited as well as we'd like, as you
and I both know, so it's best to just send off an email and ask.
Ed
on 8/25/02 6:12 PM, Keith Addison at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I would suggest that anyone who has a serious interest in regional or
larger
>> scale biodiesel production simply contact Tim Haig and talk to him, they
are
>> open for business, and happy to discuss with potential plant purchasers
>> possible terms.
>>
>> They are not interested in making biodiesel, AFAIK...they want to sell
>> plants not product.
>
> Your heroes, Ed. They certainly make a lot of claims, some of which
> seem quite wild, and/or contradictory. Reads a lot like poorly edited
> sales talk. Have they actually managed to produce any product yet to
> back up their claims? I mean not test-tubes full, proper production
> that meets ASTM standards, as they claim, at a cost of 8 cents a
> litre (or was that 18 cents a litre)? Do they have any track record
> at all? Or just PR talk and pending patents, which they might not be
> able to patent?
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>> If the process, and the deal struck make sense, go ahead and go at it -
>> regional production with the Biox process plant, that is.
>>
>> I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that
>> continuous production plants will win out over batch plants. Continuous
and
>> somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and inexpensive
>> transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale
>> operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At
what
>> scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more costly
>> (financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid for and
built
>> from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant?
>> We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some
regional
>> optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography, is
>> quite a loose and flexible term!
>>
>>
>> Edward Beggs, BES, MSc
>> Neoteric Biofuels Inc.
>> Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada
>> 1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118
>> Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169
>> http://www.biofuels.ca
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>> on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large extent
>>> simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in
their
>>> recent press reports. of which the following is one example:
>>>
>>> "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase process.
The
>>> advantages presented were those of a continuous process with
significant
>>> reduction in process time and the success achieved when using
feedstocks of
>>> high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to
produce
>>> biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)."
>>>
>>> Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the co-solvent
itself
>>> is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique enough to
merit
>>> claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable.
>>>
>>> How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to
improve
>>> upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers unique
>>> advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the
>>> essential Biox process details?
>>>
>>> The US Patent Office encourages the development of new
>> technology, for which
>>> reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this
>> will enable
>>> others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique
of
>>> "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive advantages is
the
>>> first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing
>> whether or not
>>> to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder.
>>> Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the
>>> technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue me."
>>>
>>> There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie Biox
patented
>>> technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process,
and
>>> second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew process,
>>> without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes.
>> Note that a
>>> patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for
>> commercial benefit.
>>>
>>>
>>> For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses
>> rather than into
>>> a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be
>>> expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting those
>>> proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a new
business
>>> could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis, but with
the
>>> deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary,
>> patentable
>>> position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to become
a
>>> megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward Beggs
>>> described in his 8/17 message. .
>>>
>>> Glenn Ellis
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:49:40 +0900
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
>Keith:
>
>They are not my "heroes", actually,
Oh. Sorry. You've certainly promoted them here very enthusiastically.
When Erik wrote to Boocock and got a reply you were terribly
impressed that the great man would deign to respond to the likes of
us.
>but I think anyone who has a real
>interest in what they have to offer, or what they have accomplished so
far,
>should simply ask them for an update.
Well, Erik didn't get much, just a brush off really, along with some
contempt for homebrewers (with which I think you agreed).
> Web sites don't always get updated or edited as well as we'd like, as you
>and I both know,
Links go out of date fast, but it's not a problem keeping a website
in order, even a much bigger one that that. It's rather basic if
you're out to impress people, which Biox is out to do. But people
complain that there's no information there, nothing to back up the
claims they make at their website and elsewhere, no analysis of their
product to support their claim that it meets ASTM standards, nor that
the cetane values are "too high to measure, over 80 at a minimum" (as
they told a recent visitor). There's nothing to say that they've ever
had it tested, nothing to say that they've ever even produced more
than test batches. People read everything at their site and come back
to the list saying they're none the wiser. Why are they so secretive?
>so it's best to just send off an email and ask.
And get the same contemptuous response Erik got?
What does this mean Ed, that you also don't know if they've ever
produced any product or not? You suggest anyone who has a serious
interest in biodiesel production should simply contact Biox. You've
compared Biox with well-established technology and found Biox better.
Etc etc. All on just PR and hearsay?
I agree with Paddy and with Todd. Something doesn't seem to add up
with Biox. Since you've been promoting them here so heavily, maybe
you should address that.
Keith
>Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>on 8/25/02 6:12 PM, Keith Addison at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> I would suggest that anyone who has a serious interest in
>regional or larger
> >> scale biodiesel production simply contact Tim Haig and talk to
>him, they are
> >> open for business, and happy to discuss with potential plant
purchasers
> >> possible terms.
> >>
> >> They are not interested in making biodiesel, AFAIK...they want to sell
> >> plants not product.
> >
> > Your heroes, Ed. They certainly make a lot of claims, some of which
> > seem quite wild, and/or contradictory. Reads a lot like poorly edited
> > sales talk. Have they actually managed to produce any product yet to
> > back up their claims? I mean not test-tubes full, proper production
> > that meets ASTM standards, as they claim, at a cost of 8 cents a
> > litre (or was that 18 cents a litre)? Do they have any track record
> > at all? Or just PR talk and pending patents, which they might not be
> > able to patent?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> >
> >> If the process, and the deal struck make sense, go ahead and go at it
-
> >> regional production with the Biox process plant, that is.
> >>
> >> I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that
> >> continuous production plants will win out over batch plants.
>Continuous and
> >> somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and
inexpensive
> >> transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale
> >> operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At
what
> >> scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more
costly
> >> (financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid
>for and built
> >> from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant?
> >> We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some
regional
> >> optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography,
is
> >> quite a loose and flexible term!
> >>
> >>
> >> Edward Beggs, BES, MSc
> >> Neoteric Biofuels Inc.
> >> Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada
> >> 1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118
> >> Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169
> >> http://www.biofuels.ca
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large
extent
> >>> simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in
their
> >>> recent press reports. of which the following is one example:
> >>>
> >>> "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase
>process. The
> >>> advantages presented were those of a continuous process with
significant
> >>> reduction in process time and the success achieved when using
>feedstocks of
> >>> high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to
produce
> >>> biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)."
> >>>
> >>> Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the
>co-solvent itself
> >>> is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique
>enough to merit
> >>> claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable.
> >>>
> >>> How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to
improve
> >>> upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers
unique
> >>> advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the
> >>> essential Biox process details?
> >>>
> >>> The US Patent Office encourages the development of new
> >> technology, for which
> >>> reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this
> >> will enable
> >>> others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique
of
> >>> "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive
>advantages is the
> >>> first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing
> >> whether or not
> >>> to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder.
> >>> Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the
> >>> technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue
me."
> >>>
> >>> There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie
>Biox patented
> >>> technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process,
and
> >>> second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew
process,
> >>> without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes.
> >> Note that a
> >>> patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for
> >> commercial benefit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses
> >> rather than into
> >>> a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be
> >>> expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting
those
> >>> proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a
>new business
> >>> could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis,
>but with the
> >>> deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary,
> >> patentable
> >>> position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to
become a
> >>> megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward
Beggs
> >>> described in his 8/17 message. .
> >>>
> >>> Glenn Ellis
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:46:35 +1200
From: "Mike Nixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Addison
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Inventing around the Biox process
I'm beginning to fidget in my bath chair again with all this slanging to
and fro about what purported pundits have or have not to say about the
price of fish.
Has anyone anything constructive to say on the actual subjects that are the
reason for this excellent List ... like, how do you do it yourself? To be
frank, I read the papers (when not doing The Times crossword) to see what
big business is doing and who they are currently shafting, or what the
latest Guru is claiming in order to enhance personal reputation and income.
I read the List to see what ingenuity can do to trump the buggers. Can we
not get back to subjects of vital interest to us all, like how magnets may
help me get rid of my gout?
Short Tempered of Bognor Regis.
PS. The term "bugger" is now accepted PC in this part of the world, and has
as much relationship to its original meaning as "gay", but in reverse.
Now, there's a subject to get your teeth into if you really want to get off
topic.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:39:52 -0400
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
> I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me
that
> continuous production plants will win out over batch plants.
Well Ed, you're certainly right about that. I'd kinda' like to
know how it is that a batch plant is somehow inefficient?
First of all the reagent/catalyst inputs are essentially the same
between the Biox and a batch process. Both must heat all volumes
of fluids to the boiling point of the alcohol in order to recover
it from all phases. Biox includes the added cost of the
co-solvent. Although recoverable, this adds extra volume that
requires added heat inputs to achieve evaporative recovery.
Relative to washing, there is relatively little in an acid/base
process, whether it is batch or continuous.
Both plants will have the same need to neutralize catalyst and
recover or dispose of glycerin.
Also, while a Biox plant may be sized to yield more production
per given time period, so can a batch plant. Biox's 1 million
gallon per year proto plant is actually less output than a 3,000
gallon a day batch plant.
Labor would not be greatly different. When both plants are
processing WVO, each would need a driver for collections and an
"engineer" residing at the plant.
Then there is the matter of capital costs. I seriously doubt that
a 1 million gallon per year continuous plant is going to sell for
$150,000 or less US, whereas a 3,000 gallon per day batch plant
can be built for that or considerably less, depending if being
built from the ground up and new equipment is purchased.
Throw in the number of restaurants that it takes to feed a plant
and the ever increasing radius that must be travelled with each
incremental increase in a plant's size, and labor, fuel,
maintenance and other collection costs begin to rise.
Frankly, when WVO is the feedstock, a 3,000 gpd plant is pretty
close to optimum, considering CDL road legal weights, hours of
labor required to collect the feedstock and restaurants that
won't permit collections during peak hours.
And if the feedstock were SVO, a 3,000 gpd plant being fed by a
soy extrusion/expeller facility would require ~27,000 acres of
grain to keep it operational. That's ~42 square miles. Not every
region is going to have contiguous farming of a single oilseed
crop, which means an even larger land radius to keep the same
plant fed, which means ever increasing supply costs.
Then a person needs to ask him or herself exactly how and to whom
the biodiesel is going to be unloaded. If it's sold in tanker
bulk to a traditional distributor, margins are going to be
considerably smaller than if sold in bulk to the local community.
Here's a "for instance" that ought to gall just about
anyone...and it's universal across the nation.
On-road diesel in Ohio is taxed by state and federal governments
to the tune of $0.45 a gallon. When on-road is selling at $1.45 a
gallon, technically the off-road fuel should be $1.00 even. Or so
you would think. Unfortunately, off-road fuel in 500 gallon
purchases runs ~$1.25 + at the same time. The rationale served up
by petrol distributors is that this is the cost of dying the fuel
and keeping inventory.
Uh-uh. The cost of dying the fuel is fractions of a penny per
gallon. And bulk plants do a rather brisk business in off-road
fuel. Simply, it is almost exclusively a distributor taking
advantage of the price differential between taxed and non-taxed
fuel in order to profiteer.
So what does that have to do with Biox?
Simply put, a regional batch plant can produce the same volume of
biodiesel for approximately the same cradle to grave costs as a
continual process facility. When manufacturing and distributing
locally rather than centrally there is opportunity for higher
margins without skinning the customer base alive. As frequently
as not, if not more so, there will be no valid reason to
centralize production on a voluminous scale, meaning that a CP
plant such as Biox is actually less efficient economically than a
batch plant..
Todd Swearingen
> Continuous and
> somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and
inexpensive
> transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local
small scale
> operations in many other industries - the question will be
scale. At what
> scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a
more costly
> (financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid
for and built
> from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant?
>
> We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be
some regional
> optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic
geography, is
> quite a loose and flexible term!
>
>
> Edward Beggs, BES, MSc
> Neoteric Biofuels Inc.
> Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada
> 1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118
> Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169
> http://www.biofuels.ca
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a
large extent
> > simplify rather than complicate the process. This is
described in their
> > recent press reports. of which the following is one example:
> >
> > "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase
process. The
> > advantages presented were those of a continuous process with
significant
> > reduction in process time and the success achieved when using
feedstocks of
> > high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is
to produce
> > biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre
(CND)."
> >
> > Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the
co-solvent itself
> > is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique
enough to merit
> > claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable.
> >
> > How difficult would it be to invent around this process
and/or to improve
> > upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process
offers unique
> > advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using
some of the
> > essential Biox process details?
> >
> > The US Patent Office encourages the development of new
technology, for which
> > reason they require patent details to be clearly presented;
this will enable
> > others to see whether the technology can be improved. The
technique of
> > "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive
advantages is the
> > first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing
whether or not
> > to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent
holder.
> > Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just
usiing the
> > technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say
"sue me."
> >
> > There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie
Biox patented
> > technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox
process, and
> > second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the
homebrew process,
> > without, however, using the technology for commercial
purposes. Note that a
> > patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for
commercial benefit.
> >
> >
> > For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses
rather than into
> > a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at
least to be
> > expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then
putting those
> > proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a
new business
> > could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis,
but with the
> > deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional
basis.
> >
> > Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own
propietary, patentable
> > position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent,
to become a
> > megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as
Edward Beggs
> > described in his 8/17 message. .
> >
> > Glenn Ellis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Biofuels list archives:
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> >
> > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:04:02 -0000
From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions
Hello Gray
(I feel like I'm shadowing you all over the internet today or
something)
This is one of the places where from the fryer to the fuel tank is
wrong/outdated, one more reason to get your information elsewhere!
Could someone here set me straight on my understanding of the
chemistry?
the tickell book is adamant about using the methoxide immediately.
But Ive been told that it's exposure to carbon dioxide that';s the
problem with sodium methoxide going bad, not a time factor instead.
If you keep it sealed tightly against air it'll keep- Todd, you guys
make up methoxide ahead of time, right?
(see also the really convenient and safer method called 'methoxide
the easy way' in a two-stage (?) article on journey to forever, it's
something I'd like us to be doing more at the berkeley co-op, Gray,
though it certainly takes preparation ahead of time (you do the
titration and mix the methoxide a day before you make fuel) that
might not be practical in our situation)
anyway, I'd like to know if CO is what the problem with storing
methoxide is, or if it's a matter of evaporation or they just got it
all wrong in that book (I doubt either of the latter). And when
improperly-stored methoxide 'goes bad', what is it breaking down
into? and is any of this at all a factor to consider in biodiesel
production, as in, the various people who argue both for and against
agitating with 'howling vortexes' and the like?
Lastly, is any of this different if you're dealing with ethanol or
kOH?
Mark
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "T. Gray Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> I keep waiting for someone with more experience to bring this up:
You said
> you waited overnight to add the last 1/4 of the methoxide. I quote
from
> _From the Fryer..._: "The biodiesel reaction is time-sensitive.
You must
> mix the sodium methoxide with the vegetable oil immediately after
the
> sodium methoxide is created." The answer to why you didn't get
gelatinous
> glycerine in the second stage and your final product is cloudy seems
> obvious to me - or am I misunderstanding something?
>
> - Gray
>
>
> >I have some questions regarding a 30 gallon batch I just made and
> >would really appreciate some help.
> >I have been using the 2 stage method this summer with success. I
use
> >6.25 grams of lye/litre of wvo with 25% of the volume of the wvo
> >being methanol. 3/4 of that was added to the wvo and produced
syrupy
> >dark brown glycerine (like last time I made it). The next day I
added
> >the last 1/4 of the methoxide but did not get the gelatinous
> >glycerine like I did last time, but got the dark liquidy syrup
again.
> >I am wondering why. Also, the final product is cloudy which might
> >mean water in it. I have heated the final product to about 135-140
> >for a half hour but it did not seem to permanently get rid of the
> >cloudiness. I do not wish to do the wash at the end-I've been
having
> >success running unwashed, clear fuel. So, knowing that I should
heat
> >the wvo hotter and longer before the process here are my questions:
> >
> >1) Why did I not get gelationous glycerine in the second stage?
> >
> >2 )Is the cloudiness water even though my reliable source of wvo
does
> >not let water get into his oil?
> >
> >3) What temp and how long do you need to heat the final product to
> >evap the water-without evaporating the methanol (which boils off at
> >140 degrees, I assume).
> >
> >4) Is the methanol that has successfully mixed with the oil in
danger
> >of boiling off above 140 degrees or will only the excess methanol
> >boil off.
> >
> >5) If the cloudiness is water, why doesn't the water settle to the
> >bottom the way it would after a wash? Why does it stay suspended?
> >Does it eventually settle out to the bottom leaving clear bio-d on
> >top?
> >
> >My batch before this one came out crystal clear and the car purrs
> >with it. I don't want to run a cloudy mix in the car, should I wait
> >to see if it settles-or heat it up again? Again how hot, how
long....
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> >Biofuels list archives:
> >http://archive.nnytech.net/
> >
> >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:10:48 -0700
From: Jan Steinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
> From: "goat industries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Have we not considered that the biox process may be just a load of
bullshit?
>There seem to be a few things that don't add up - eg high cetane values,
the
>use of porcine lipase...
"Porcine lipase" = pig fat digestion enzyme?
I know just enough about organic chemistry to be dangerous, but without
having extensively reviewed the Biox process, this does sound like a load.
--
: Jan Steinman <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068, 503.635.3229
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:48:19 -0000
From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions
>
> But Ive been told that it's exposure to carbon dioxide that';s the
> problem with sodium methoxide going bad, not a time factor instead.
oops, forgot this-
so if that's the case, is this carbon dioxide problem in some way
related to the way the lye 'carbonizes' if left exposed to humid air?
(sorry, I really missed out on chemistry class way back when)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:33:56 +0900
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions
Hello Mark
>Hello Gray
>(I feel like I'm shadowing you all over the internet today or
>something)
>
>This is one of the places where from the fryer to the fuel tank is
>wrong/outdated, one more reason to get your information elsewhere!
>
> Could someone here set me straight on my understanding of the
>chemistry?
>
>the tickell book is adamant about using the methoxide immediately.
>But Ive been told that it's exposure to carbon dioxide that';s the
>problem with sodium methoxide going bad, not a time factor instead.
>If you keep it sealed tightly against air it'll keep- Todd, you guys
>make up methoxide ahead of time, right?
CO2 is a problem with lye. CO2 from the atmosphere neutralizes it and
forms sodium
carbonate. Carbonated lye is much whiter than pure lye, which is
almost translucent. The carbonate in the lye won't harm the reaction,
but you'll have to use more lye.
Methoxide, dunno. "Decomposed by water," it says here, "gives ethers
with alkyl halides". What's an alkyl halide? Sounds like seriously
bad breath. Anyway, if the methoxide is sealed the methanol won't
evaporate, and I don't see any problem, and haven't had any problems.
Well, it does evaporate - at first the container swells a bit with
the initial heat, then later it shrinks a bit, so whatever evaporates
at first condenses again and isn't lost. It certainly doesn't degrade
overnight, nor even over a few days. I've done this with some high
FFA oils with single-stage, and if the methoxide had degraded it just
wouldn't have worked properly, but it worked just fine. If you keep
the stuff for months maybe it'll degrade somehow, but why would a
person do that? It's not very nice stuff after all, better to keep
the ingredients separate until needed, safer. If you're using a
two-stage method at least you'd know how strong to make the mixture,
otherwise you probably wouldn't know. It might make sense to mix up a
concentrated stock solution and store that, adding more methanol as
required before use, but actually the Easy way (below) really is so
easy that I just don't see the point.
> (see also the really convenient and safer method called 'methoxide
>the easy way' in a two-stage (?) article on journey to forever, it's
>something I'd like us to be doing more at the berkeley co-op, Gray,
>though it certainly takes preparation ahead of time (you do the
>titration and mix the methoxide a day before you make fuel) that
>might not be practical in our situation)
Not very much ahead of time, overnight is usually enough. "Methoxide
the easy way" is here:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_aleksnew.html#easymeth
If you're demonstrating, maybe you can demonstrate titration, make up
a mixture and seal it, then for the process go on to use a batch you
did the same thing to the day before.
>anyway, I'd like to know if CO is what the problem with storing
>methoxide is, or if it's a matter of evaporation or they just got it
>all wrong in that book (I doubt either of the latter). And when
>improperly-stored methoxide 'goes bad', what is it breaking down
>into? and is any of this at all a factor to consider in biodiesel
>production, as in, the various people who argue both for and against
>agitating with 'howling vortexes' and the like?
>Lastly, is any of this different if you're dealing with ethanol or
>kOH?
Ken Provost's worked a lot with this, one of his messages said: "Lye
will work, but it dissolves very slowly in ethanol, even when heat is
applied. KOH dissolves better (still slow)." You have to use more KOH
(1.4 times as much), and more ethanol too.
Regards
Keith
>Mark
>
>
>--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "T. Gray Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dear Peter,
> >
> > I keep waiting for someone with more experience to bring this up:
>You said
> > you waited overnight to add the last 1/4 of the methoxide. I quote
>from
> > _From the Fryer..._: "The biodiesel reaction is time-sensitive.
>You must
> > mix the sodium methoxide with the vegetable oil immediately after
>the
> > sodium methoxide is created." The answer to why you didn't get
>gelatinous
> > glycerine in the second stage and your final product is cloudy seems
> > obvious to me - or am I misunderstanding something?
> >
> > - Gray
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:09:16 +0900
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: molecular sieves for dehydrating ethanol
Trawling through the archives for something and found this, and no
more - dated 26 November 2001.
Any updates on this, guys?
Keith
Ken Provost wrote:
>Greg H. writes:
>
> >Place the ethanol in a container like a 30 gal RubberMaid trash can.
Add
> >1/4 bag Portland cement, mix well, let settle, after 24 hrs, mix it all
back
> >up, let settle again. Without disturbing the sedament, remove the
alcohol to
> >just above the lime. The lime in the can combines with the water and
gets
> >solid (clumping). After it sets up, it can be removed from the can,
leaving
> >unreacted lime to be mixed with the next batch of ethanol, with more
added
> >as nessasary. A simple micron filter to remove any last lime, from the
> >alcohol would be all that was needed.
> >
> >Anyone have any thoughts on it?
>
>
>Great idea -- I'd thought of Plaster of Paris, but haven't tried it.
Cement
>sounds good too -- have you done it, and can you really "peel off" a layer
>of solidified cement, exposing dry powder for reuse?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:09:13 +0900
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
Poor old feller swallowed his magnet by mistake, if that doesn't help
his gout nothing will. Nurse! NURSE!!! Ah, there she is... He needs
his whisky. What, he's fallen asleep? Well, wake him up so you can
give him his sleeping pill.
Keith
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Keith Addison
>To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] Inventing around the Biox process
>
>I'm beginning to fidget in my bath chair again with all this
>slanging to and fro about what purported pundits have or have not to
>say about the price of fish.
>
>Has anyone anything constructive to say on the actual subjects that
>are the reason for this excellent List ... like, how do you do it
>yourself? To be frank, I read the papers (when not doing The Times
>crossword) to see what big business is doing and who they are
>currently shafting, or what the latest Guru is claiming in order to
>enhance personal reputation and income. I read the List to see what
>ingenuity can do to trump the buggers. Can we not get back to
>subjects of vital interest to us all, like how magnets may help me
>get rid of my gout?
>
>Short Tempered of Bognor Regis.
>
>PS. The term "bugger" is now accepted PC in this part of the world,
>and has as much relationship to its original meaning as "gay", but
>in reverse. Now, there's a subject to get your teeth into if you
>really want to get off topic.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:31:54 +0900
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process
> > From: "goat industries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Have we not considered that the biox process may be just a load of
bullshit?
> >There seem to be a few things that don't add up - eg high cetane values,
the
> >use of porcine lipase...
>
>"Porcine lipase" = pig fat digestion enzyme?
>
>I know just enough about organic chemistry to be dangerous, but
>without having extensively reviewed the Biox process, this does
>sound like a load.
>
>--
>: Jan Steinman <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>: Bytesmiths <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
>: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068, 503.635.3229
Hello Jan
I don't think the Biox process claims to use lipase. Seems to use
just about everything else though, except a pinch of salt maybe.
Lipase catalysis is an established biodiesel production method, with
quite a few advantages, and some disadvantages, but not done on a
backyard scale yet, though quite a lot of people are interested in
that.
Best
Keith
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:19:56 -0400
From: studio53 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WVO for heat, preliminary results
Stephen,
I've been "working" on this idea for some time. I acquired a spare Becket
burner that I will continue experimenting with. I have a 115,000 BTU
oil-fired burner ( no water jacket involved) for the household heat. The
motor (not on the burner) for moving the forced hot air around the house is
1725rpm. The nozzle is 1.25 gal /hr.
Regarding your project, The timer you need to delay the wvo/ho mixture is
already built into your system at the variable-heat differential switch
which starts the forced hot air fan. Mine is set at about two minutes, but
can be lengthened. I still need to set up an electric zone-valve for the
switch-over which also will require a separate tank. I think an old
converted 75 gallon water tank just might do the trick, but of course this
would not pass city code inspection. Better off with a standard oil tank,
but depending on the situation of where it's located, it might need
Seems like a separate pump would also be needed. What would be ideal is if
the other side of the shaft on the main electric blower/ fuel pump motor of
the primary burner could turn an auxillary second pump for that extra tank.
Then the only connection between the two two would be that switchable
valve.
Another aspect I've been looking at is the amount of heat that gets lost
going up the chimney, but that's another project.
My questions for are:
What is the BTU output of your furnace?
What nozzle size is are you using? You might be able to increase your
wvo/ho
ration with a larger nozzle?
What is the source of your WVO and are you prefiltering before adding to
the
#2 heating oil?
I took a look at the Babington burner which is basically an open
uncontrolled flame and decided it's not the way I want to go. I feel to
much
can go wrong with it. With the forced hot air oil burner, everything is
basically already there.
I'm eager to know how your project is going. Let me know.
Jesse Parris | studio53 | graphics / web design | stamford, ct |
203.324.4371
www.jesseparris.com/Portfolio_Jesse_Parris/
----- Original Message -----
From: "sbosco9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: [biofuel] WVO for heat, preliminary results
> Hello from the newbie on the list
>
> I have been having some success with burning WVO in a traditional oil
> burner. I at first attempted running it through mixed with an equal
> amount of #2 heating oil (aka diesel fuel)- although the mixture
> seemed to atomize normally, the mist only partially ignited. Second
> attempt, I mixed one part WVO with two parts #2 oil, this ignited
> almost completely. I have now logged about one hour of burning this
> mixture, starting from a cold state several times. The combustion
> makes an oscillating sound for a couple of minutes on startup, along
> with some puffs of blowback through the cracks in the boiler door,
> but it cleans up after the burner has been on for 2-3 minutes. The
> improvement could be due to the heat which has built up in the
> firebox walls- at that point the flame is clean white with very
> little smoke.
> After reading some of the things which have been written on this
> subject, I was expecting the WVO to block my nozzle orifice, but,
> (knock on oil can) this hasn't happened yet.
>
>
> I'd like to eliminate the initial dodginess in the flame, and I'd
> also like to increase my ratio of WVO to #2 oil- one way I might be
> able to accomplish this is to start the burner with pure #2 oil then
> switch over to WVO/#2 mix after the firebox is good and hot (following
> the model employed in WVO burning cars). Preheating the oil also
> occurred to me, but it seems like any preheating I could do safely
> would be pretty modest compared with the firebox heat.
>
> Another idea is to build a babington style burner, which I have begun
> to assemble the parts for. I suspect that this type of burner will
> suffer from the same problem though- incomplete combustion of the oil
> mist at lower temperatures. The only babington style burner which I
> have seen in action was affixed to a 4" diameter steel tube about 20"
> long, again, possibly to build up heat quickly and radiate it back
> onto the flame.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
>
> Stephen Bosco
> Arlington, Mass., USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:55:40 -0000
From: "pcooke04102" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: process questions
Hello and thank you for the help so far. I am washing this batch that
I have had questions about and will let you know. I did some
background reading and have decided I will probably wash my fuel for
now on even though I do know of some people who don't wash their fuel
and have not had any negative effects. The cuastic (ness) of the fuel
seems like it could screw the fule pump up...by the way, does anyone
know if there are rubber parts in a VW TDI fuel pump? What
specifically could degrade within it?
I imagine there could be issues with the injectors and such-anyway I
will be using the idaho bw.
Should I wait for the fuel to be clear before washing it a second
time or will a second wash clear it up more? How long does one let a
batch settle for after a wash, generally, a few days, a week 2 weeks?
This batch has set for almost a week and I'm wondering about washing
it again now. Any suggestions? By the way, in response to the
question about ethanol, I recommend looking up those previous posts
that Keith suggested-I have limited experience maing the bio-D and no
experience with using ethanol with it.
Thanks again-PC
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:00:16 -0000
From: "pcooke04102" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: boiling glycerine/soap
Here is a qustion for soap makers. I am trying to make soap out of
the waste glycerine. I boiled 2 liters glycerine at 160 degrees F for
about 15 minutes. Is this enough time to evaporate all the methanol
out? How do you know when its been evaporated.
I then combined 50 grams of lye/liter of glycerine when both were at
temps around 100 degrees F and poured into the bottom of a plastic
jug. Looks like I have round disk of soap. I think I'll try adding
fragrance to the next batch to see if its workable, just wondering
about the methanol being gone-which I'm assuming it is. Any comments
or suggestions? Thanks in advance-PC
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:12:08 -0500
From: "Ehren Bucholtz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions
The key to maintaining reactivity with any alkoxide (methoxide,
ethoxide, etc.) is to keep it as dry as possible. Alkoxides are very
strong bases, and in the presence of water, pull a proton off of the
water. this regenerates the alcohol, and produces hydroxide ion.
For example, if sodium hydroxide is added to methanol, the methanol is
converted to sodium methoxide by pulling a proton off of methanol
forming a water molecule in the process. Since there is so much more
methanol than water molecules at this point, the possibility of that
water molecule coming in contact with that newly generated methoxide ion
is very small. However, if the air is very humid, and water can be
aborbed by the solvent(methanol in this case) It increases the
possiblity of the water being able to "neutralize" the methoxide ion
that was generated. Hence, the longer the solution sits, the greater
chance of neutralizing the methoxide.
If one wanted to be very careful about generating the methoxide, a head
of dry nitrogen could be maintained in the reaction vessel to prevent
any air moisture from coming in contact with the sodium methoxide in
methanol solution. This is rather impractical for the homebrewer, so it
is best to use the methoxide solution as soon as possible.
I have also had problems with using "old" methanol for the biodiesel
reaction. It appeared that the methanol absorbed water from the air
over time. I was able to overcome this with addition of molecular
sieves to the methanol, thereby drying it.
This is also the reason that using dry ethanol is so crucial when
forming ethyl esters. Ethanol is a great dessicant by itself and can
pull moisture out of the air.
Thanks for letting me put in my 0.02 USD, I have been lurking for a
couple of months but finally felt I had something to add of value.
Ehren
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/26/02 02:04AM >>>
Hello Gray
(I feel like I'm shadowing you all over the internet today or
something)
This is one of the places where from the fryer to the fuel tank is
wrong/outdated, one more reason to get your information elsewhere!
Could someone here set me straight on my understanding of the
chemistry?
the tickell book is adamant about using the methoxide immediately.
But Ive been told that it's exposure to carbon dioxide that';s the
problem with sodium methoxide going bad, not a time factor instead.
If you keep it sealed tightly against air it'll keep- Todd, you guys
make up methoxide ahead of time, right?
(see also the really convenient and safer method called 'methoxide
the easy way' in a two-stage (?) article on journey to forever, it's
something I'd like us to be doing more at the berkeley co-op, Gray,
though it certainly takes preparation ahead of time (you do the
titration and mix the methoxide a day before you make fuel) that
might not be practical in our situation)
anyway, I'd like to know if CO is what the problem with storing
methoxide is, or if it's a matter of evaporation or they just got it
all wrong in that book (I doubt either of the latter). And when
improperly-stored methoxide 'goes bad', what is it breaking down
into? and is any of this at all a factor to consider in biodiesel
production, as in, the various people who argue both for and against
agitating with 'howling vortexes' and the like?
Lastly, is any of this different if you're dealing with ethanol or
kOH?
Mark
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "T. Gray Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> I keep waiting for someone with more experience to bring this up:
You said
> you waited overnight to add the last 1/4 of the methoxide. I quote
from
> _From the Fryer..._: "The biodiesel reaction is time-sensitive.
You must
> mix the sodium methoxide with the vegetable oil immediately after
the
> sodium methoxide is created." The answer to why you didn't get
gelatinous
> glycerine in the second stage and your final product is cloudy seems
> obvious to me - or am I misunderstanding something?
>
> - Gray
>
>
> >I have some questions regarding a 30 gallon batch I just made and
> >would really appreciate some help.
> >I have been using the 2 stage method this summer with success. I
use
> >6.25 grams of lye/litre of wvo with 25% of the volume of the wvo
> >being methanol. 3/4 of that was added to the wvo and produced
syrupy
> >dark brown glycerine (like last time I made it). The next day I
added
> >the last 1/4 of the methoxide but did not get the gelatinous
> >glycerine like I did last time, but got the dark liquidy syrup
again.
> >I am wondering why. Also, the final product is cloudy which might
> >mean water in it. I have heated the final product to about 135-140
> >for a half hour but it did not seem to permanently get rid of the
> >cloudiness. I do not wish to do the wash at the end-I've been
having
> >success running unwashed, clear fuel. So, knowing that I should
heat
> >the wvo hotter and longer before the process here are my questions:
> >
> >1) Why did I not get gelationous glycerine in the second stage?
> >
> >2 )Is the cloudiness water even though my reliable source of wvo
does
> >not let water get into his oil?
> >
> >3) What temp and how long do you need to heat the final product to
> >evap the water-without evaporating the methanol (which boils off at
> >140 degrees, I assume).
> >
> >4) Is the methanol that has successfully mixed with the oil in
danger
> >of boiling off above 140 degrees or will only the excess methanol
> >boil off.
> >
> >5) If the cloudiness is water, why doesn't the water settle to the
> >bottom the way it would after a wash? Why does it stay suspended?
> >Does it eventually settle out to the bottom leaving clear bio-d on
> >top?
> >
> >My batch before this one came out crystal clear and the car purrs
> >with it. I don't want to run a cloudy mix in the car, should I wait
> >to see if it settles-or heat it up again? Again how hot, how
long....
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> >Biofuels list archives:
> >http://archive.nnytech.net/
> >
> >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
